Exploring the experiences and perspectives of substitute decision-makers involved in decisions about deceased organ donation: a qualitative study protocol

Introduction In Canada, deceased organ donation provides over 80% of transplanted organs. At the time of death, families, friends or others assume responsibility as substitute decision-makers (SDMs) to consent to organ donation. Despite their central role in this process, little is known about what barriers, enablers and beliefs influence decision-making among SDMs. This study aims to explore the experiences and perspectives of SDMs involved in making decisions around the withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies, end-of-life care and deceased organ donation. Methods and analysis SDMs of 60 patients admitted to intensive care units will be enrolled for this study. Ten hospitals across five provinces in Canada in a prospective multicentre qualitative cohort study. We will conduct semistructured telephone interviews in English or French with SDMs between 6 and 8 weeks after the patient’s death. Our sampling frame will stratify SDMs into three groups: SDMs who were not approached for organ donation; SDMs who were approached and consented to donate and SDMs who were approached but did not consent to donate. We will use two complementary theoretical frameworks—the Common-Sense Self-Regulation Model and the Theoretical Domains Framework— to inform our interview guide. Interview data will be analysed using deductive directed content analysis and inductive thematic analysis. Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the Centre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal Research Ethics Board. The findings from this study will help identify key factors affecting substitute decision-making in deceased organ donation, reasons for non-consent and barriers to achieve congruency between SDM and patient wishes. Ultimately, these data will contribute to the development and evaluation of tools and training for healthcare providers to support SDMs in making decisions about organ donation. Trial registration number NCT03850847.

[1]  B. Copnell,et al.  Researching people who are bereaved: Managing risks to participants and researchers , 2019, Nursing ethics.

[2]  S. Sutherland,et al.  A Multicenter Qualitative Investigation of the Experiences and Perspectives of Substitute Decision Makers Who Underwent Organ Donation Decisions , 2018, Progress in transplantation.

[3]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  Barriers and Enablers to Organ Donation After Circulatory Determination of Death: A Qualitative Study Exploring the Beliefs of Frontline Intensive Care Unit Professionals and Organ Donor Coordinators , 2018, Transplantation direct.

[4]  M. Sque,et al.  Bereaved donor families' experiences of organ and tissue donation, and perceived influences on their decision making , 2018, Journal of critical care.

[5]  T. Caulfield,et al.  Family veto in organ donation in Canada: framing within English-language newspaper articles. , 2017, CMAJ open.

[6]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  Identifying determinants of medication adherence following myocardial infarction using the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Health Action Process Approach , 2017, Psychology & health.

[7]  Jeremy M. Grimshaw,et al.  A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems , 2017, Implementation Science.

[8]  Ahmed A. Al-Jaishi,et al.  Barriers and facilitators to healthcare professional behaviour change in clinical trials using the Theoretical Domains Framework: a case study of a trial of individualized temperature-reduced haemodialysis , 2017, Trials.

[9]  T. Caulfield,et al.  Evaluating the “family veto” of consent for organ donation , 2016, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[10]  L. Hornby,et al.  Feasibility of conducting prospective observational research on critically ill, dying patients in the intensive care unit , 2016, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[11]  A. Hoitsma,et al.  Request for organ donation without donor registration: a qualitative study of the perspectives of bereaved relatives , 2016, BMC medical ethics.

[12]  M. Sque,et al.  Balancing hope and despair at the end of life: The contribution of organ and tissue donation. , 2016, Journal of critical care.

[13]  É. Azoulay,et al.  Research Participation for Bereaved Family Members: Experience and Insights From a Qualitative Study , 2015, Critical care medicine.

[14]  S. Chevret,et al.  Complicated grief after death of a relative in the intensive care unit , 2015, European Respiratory Journal.

[15]  C. Marck,et al.  Understanding Australian Families’ Organ Donation Decisions , 2015, Anaesthesia and intensive care.

[16]  C. Marck,et al.  Factors relating to consent for organ donation: prospective data on potential organ donors , 2015, Internal medicine journal.

[17]  M. Sque,et al.  Research with bereaved families , 2014, Nursing ethics.

[18]  É. Azoulay,et al.  Involvement of ICU families in decisions: fine-tuning the partnership , 2014, Annals of Intensive Care.

[19]  Seema K. Shah,et al.  A narrative review of the empirical evidence on public attitudes on brain death and vital organ transplantation: the need for better data to inform policy , 2014, Journal of Medical Ethics.

[20]  T. Sinuff,et al.  The desirability of an Intensive Care Unit (ICU) clinician-led bereavement screening and support program for family members of ICU Decedents (ICU Bereave). , 2014, Journal of critical care.

[21]  A. Garg,et al.  Interventions for increasing solid organ donor registration , 2013 .

[22]  M. Sque,et al.  Factors Influencing Bereaved Families’ Decisions About Organ Donation , 2013, Western journal of nursing research.

[23]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  Anesthesiologists’ and surgeons’ perceptions about routine pre-operative testing in low-risk patients: application of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify factors that influence physicians’ decisions to order pre-operative tests , 2012, Implementation Science.

[24]  S. Michie,et al.  Validation of the theoretical domains framework for use in behaviour change and implementation research , 2012, Implementation Science.

[25]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies , 2010, Psychology & health.

[26]  Kimberly A. Neuendorf,et al.  Reliability for Content Analysis , 2010 .

[27]  P. Sainsbury,et al.  Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. , 2007, International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care.

[28]  M. Johnston,et al.  Protocol for stage 1 of the GaP study (Genetic testing acceptability for Paget's disease of bone): an interview study about genetic testing and preventive treatment: would relatives of people with Paget's disease want testing and treatment if they were available? , 2006, BMC Health Services Research.

[29]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[30]  Hsiu-Fang Hsieh,et al.  Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis , 2005, Qualitative health research.

[31]  C. Abraham,et al.  Making psychological theory useful for implementing evidence based practice: a consensus approach , 2005, Quality and Safety in Health Care.

[32]  K. Krippendorff.  Reliability in Content Analysis: Some Common Misconceptions and Recommendations , 2004 .

[33]  M. Cleiren,et al.  POST-MORTEM ORGAN DONATION AND GRIEF: A STUDY OF CONSENT, REFUSAL AND WELL-BEING IN BEREAVEMENT , 2002, Death studies.

[34]  Howard Leventhal,et al.  Illness cognition: Using common sense to understand treatment adherence and affect cognition interactions , 1992, Cognitive Therapy and Research.